Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86973 Case Number: LCR11059 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IDATU |
Rates of pay for casual/part-time staff.
Recommendation:
6. Having heard the further submissions in this case the Court is
of the opinion that the Company's offer in respect of casual
part-time staff is reasonable in the light of payments made to
similar staff elsewhere in the country. What appears necessary is
to make a clear distinction between this grade of staff and the
"pro rata" part-time staff. The Court therefore recommends that
the parties negotiate an agreed definition of casual part-time
staff to whom the above rate would apply.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86973 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11059
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11059
Parties: QUINNSWORTH LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Rates of pay for casual/part-time staff.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the Company's stores in
Cork. In August, 1984 the Union submitted a claim regarding the
pay and conditions of part-time workers. Discussions took place
at local level, but no agreement was reached on a number of
aspects of the claim.
3. A Labour Court hearing was held on 1st October, 1985 in Cork
and on 12th November, 1985, Recommendation 10,095 was issued by
the Court, of which the following refers to casual/part-time
staff.
"As regards the question of conditions applicable to
casual staff in the light of general practice
prevailing in the trade the Court recommends that
pending more general agreement on minimum conditions
that the parties meet to negotiate a minimum hourly
rate for such staff."
In accordance with the Court's recommendation, a meeting took
place between the Company and Union in February, 1986. The Union
sought a substantial increase in the hourly rate for the workers
concerned. (#2 per hour at the time). The Company viewed the
Court's recommendation as being a vindication of its position. No
agreement could be reached, and on 22nd October, 1986, the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 3rd December, 1986. As no
agreement was reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation on 8th December, 1986. A
Court hearing took place in Cork on 25th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) If negotiations on wages and conditions are to have any
meaning, it is essential that the outcome of those
negotiations should be implemented without exception.
This is not the case at present. A rate of pay is
negotiated for the Cork Retail Grocery Trade which is
applied to all workers, full-time, part-time or casual,
by all members of that trade with the exception of
Quinnsworth. The result is a kind of apartheid
whereby, through arbitrarily designating some staff
"casual," the Company can decide on the hours of work,
rate of pay, and conditions of employment generally of
a significant category of workers, without any
reference to the Union. The Union believes that this
is unacceptable.
(ii) All part-time staff, including those designated
"casual" by the Company, should be paid pro-rata to the
pay scale. The Union rejects a distinction at present
drawn between part-time staff who are paid pro-rata to
the full-time scale, and other part-time staff on the
basis of whether the staff concerned do or do not use
cash registers. This distinction is irrelevant in that
other workers employed by the Company - store workers,
for example - do not use cash registers yet are paid
the same rate as other staff. More importantly, it is
unacceptable because pro-rata pay applies to all
part-time staff, whether designated casual or not, in
all other operators in the Cork Retail Grocery Trade.
The Union believes that, apart from the limitations
deriving from the nature of their employment, part-time
staff should not be treated less favourably than
full-time staff. This principle has been specifically
invoked by the Court in the past (Recommendations No.
7672, 7953, 9007, 9031, 9284 and 9762, to name but a
few).
(iv) The Union would point out that the Court's own Joint
Labour Committees, which provide for legal minimum
rates of pay for workers who are generally considered
to be low-paid, provides for legal minimum rates which
are in no case as low as those paid by the Company to
its "casual" staff - the lowest rate for a messenger,
for example, is now in excess of #2 per hour in his
first year.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Casual part time staff are in the main students who
work in the store on the way home from school or
college. They may also work on late night or
Saturdays.
(b) Casual part time staff do not work for the Company with
the long term aim of developing a career with
the Company. In general, they work for pocket money
only.
(c) The pay and conditions of casual part time staff are in
line with those in the grocery supermarket industry
generally. Traditionally, in the Company and
elsewhere, the rate of pay is agreed between the
individual and the manager.
(d) In October, 1984, agreement was reached within the
grocery supermarkets Joint Industrial Council in
Dublin, on pay and conditions for pro rata sales
assistants. The agreement also provided a rate of pay
for casual part time staff. The appropriate clause
states:
"It is agreed that the existing arrangements in respect
of casual or basket staff shall continue. The rate of
pay to apply to these staff is as follows: Age 15 or
16 - #1.00 per hour, Age 17 or 18 - #1.10 per hour,
Over age 18 - #1.25.
Such rates of pay to attract future pay round
increases."
(e) At the conciliation conference in Cork on 3/12/86, the
Company proposed the following rates: Age 15 - #1.20
per hour, Age 16 or 17 - #1.33 per hour, Age 18 - #1.49
per hour. These rates are in line with those currently
being paid in the supermarket industry in Dublin and in
the provinces and it submitted that they are equitable
in the circumstances. The Company respectfully
requests the Court to recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having heard the further submissions in this case the Court is
of the opinion that the Company's offer in respect of casual
part-time staff is reasonable in the light of payments made to
similar staff elsewhere in the country. What appears necessary is
to make a clear distinction between this grade of staff and the
"pro rata" part-time staff. The Court therefore recommends that
the parties negotiate an agreed definition of casual part-time
staff to whom the above rate would apply.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
Deputy Chairman
6th April, 1987
P.F./J.C.